The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. A Response to “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions". Backer, D. I. Democracy education, 25:9, 2017. ![The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. A Response to “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions" [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex My response to Samuelsson’s (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg’s application of Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the “political unconscious” of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderateliberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberativedemocratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a leftofliberal view of each of Samuelsson’s requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practicalpedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response’s contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also— following Samuelsson— to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. This article is in response to: Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions. Democracy & Education, 24(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/ home/vol24/iss1/5 Samuelsson’s (2016) “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions” is a neat essay. First, the author mapped out criteria for what counts as deliberative democracy in theory, surveying an important field of philosophical and political scholarship. Next, Samuelsson sculpted three requirements out of this theoretical literature, which actual classroom discussions— fleshandblood people, learning together— might satisfy or not, making their discussions more or less deliberativedemocratic. These three criteria are: (a) the reasongiving requirement wherein different points of view are presented, each of which being underpinned with reasons that participants put forth; (b) the reflective requirement, where participants display a willingness to listen to and think about one another’s reasons, as well as revise these reasons if new information becomes convincing; and (c) the striving for consensus requirement, where participants attempt to formulate compromises given existing disagreements, from which a unanimity may emerge. Drawing from observation work in the field, Samuelsson (2016) gave concrete examples of discussions that exhibit one or two of the requirements, distinguishing these discussions from the most David I. Backer is an assistant professor in the College of Education and Social Work at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. His most recent book is Elements of Discussion, a practical and philosophical handbook for facilitating discussion in neoliberal times. His website is davidbacker.com.
@article{backer_critique_2017,
title = {The {Critique} of {Deliberative} {Discussion}. {A} {Response} to “{Education} for {Deliberative} {Democracy}: {A} {Typology} of {Classroom} {Discussions}"},
volume = {25},
url = {https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab903dfd3e796ad3c8462277446291fce073a03b},
abstract = {My response to Samuelsson’s (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg’s application of Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the “political unconscious” of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderateliberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberativedemocratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a leftofliberal view of each of Samuelsson’s requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practicalpedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response’s contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also— following Samuelsson— to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. This article is in response to: Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions. Democracy \& Education, 24(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/ home/vol24/iss1/5 Samuelsson’s (2016) “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions” is a neat essay. First, the author mapped out criteria for what counts as deliberative democracy in theory, surveying an important field of philosophical and political scholarship. Next, Samuelsson sculpted three requirements out of this theoretical literature, which actual classroom discussions— fleshandblood people, learning together— might satisfy or not, making their discussions more or less deliberativedemocratic. These three criteria are: (a) the reasongiving requirement wherein different points of view are presented, each of which being underpinned with reasons that participants put forth; (b) the reflective requirement, where participants display a willingness to listen to and think about one another’s reasons, as well as revise these reasons if new information becomes convincing; and (c) the striving for consensus requirement, where participants attempt to formulate compromises given existing disagreements, from which a unanimity may emerge. Drawing from observation work in the field, Samuelsson (2016) gave concrete examples of discussions that exhibit one or two of the requirements, distinguishing these discussions from the most David I. Backer is an assistant professor in the College of Education and Social Work at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. His most recent book is Elements of Discussion, a practical and philosophical handbook for facilitating discussion in neoliberal times. His website is davidbacker.com.},
journal = {Democracy education},
author = {Backer, David I.},
year = {2017},
pages = {9},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"XpNiCC7ecbMJxYxJE","bibbaseid":"backer-thecritiqueofdeliberativediscussionaresponsetoeducationfordeliberativedemocracyatypologyofclassroomdiscussions-2017","author_short":["Backer, D. I."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. A Response to “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions\"","volume":"25","url":"https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab903dfd3e796ad3c8462277446291fce073a03b","abstract":"My response to Samuelsson’s (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg’s application of Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the “political unconscious” of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderateliberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberativedemocratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a leftofliberal view of each of Samuelsson’s requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practicalpedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response’s contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also— following Samuelsson— to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. This article is in response to: Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions. Democracy & Education, 24(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/ home/vol24/iss1/5 Samuelsson’s (2016) “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions” is a neat essay. First, the author mapped out criteria for what counts as deliberative democracy in theory, surveying an important field of philosophical and political scholarship. Next, Samuelsson sculpted three requirements out of this theoretical literature, which actual classroom discussions— fleshandblood people, learning together— might satisfy or not, making their discussions more or less deliberativedemocratic. These three criteria are: (a) the reasongiving requirement wherein different points of view are presented, each of which being underpinned with reasons that participants put forth; (b) the reflective requirement, where participants display a willingness to listen to and think about one another’s reasons, as well as revise these reasons if new information becomes convincing; and (c) the striving for consensus requirement, where participants attempt to formulate compromises given existing disagreements, from which a unanimity may emerge. Drawing from observation work in the field, Samuelsson (2016) gave concrete examples of discussions that exhibit one or two of the requirements, distinguishing these discussions from the most David I. Backer is an assistant professor in the College of Education and Social Work at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. His most recent book is Elements of Discussion, a practical and philosophical handbook for facilitating discussion in neoliberal times. His website is davidbacker.com.","journal":"Democracy education","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Backer"],"firstnames":["David","I."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2017","pages":"9","bibtex":"@article{backer_critique_2017,\n\ttitle = {The {Critique} of {Deliberative} {Discussion}. {A} {Response} to “{Education} for {Deliberative} {Democracy}: {A} {Typology} of {Classroom} {Discussions}\"},\n\tvolume = {25},\n\turl = {https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab903dfd3e796ad3c8462277446291fce073a03b},\n\tabstract = {My response to Samuelsson’s (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg’s application of Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the “political unconscious” of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderateliberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberativedemocratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a leftofliberal view of each of Samuelsson’s requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practicalpedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response’s contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also— following Samuelsson— to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. This article is in response to: Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions. Democracy \\& Education, 24(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/ home/vol24/iss1/5 Samuelsson’s (2016) “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions” is a neat essay. First, the author mapped out criteria for what counts as deliberative democracy in theory, surveying an important field of philosophical and political scholarship. Next, Samuelsson sculpted three requirements out of this theoretical literature, which actual classroom discussions— fleshandblood people, learning together— might satisfy or not, making their discussions more or less deliberativedemocratic. These three criteria are: (a) the reasongiving requirement wherein different points of view are presented, each of which being underpinned with reasons that participants put forth; (b) the reflective requirement, where participants display a willingness to listen to and think about one another’s reasons, as well as revise these reasons if new information becomes convincing; and (c) the striving for consensus requirement, where participants attempt to formulate compromises given existing disagreements, from which a unanimity may emerge. Drawing from observation work in the field, Samuelsson (2016) gave concrete examples of discussions that exhibit one or two of the requirements, distinguishing these discussions from the most David I. Backer is an assistant professor in the College of Education and Social Work at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. His most recent book is Elements of Discussion, a practical and philosophical handbook for facilitating discussion in neoliberal times. His website is davidbacker.com.},\n\tjournal = {Democracy education},\n\tauthor = {Backer, David I.},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpages = {9},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Backer, D. I."],"key":"backer_critique_2017-1","id":"backer_critique_2017-1","bibbaseid":"backer-thecritiqueofdeliberativediscussionaresponsetoeducationfordeliberativedemocracyatypologyofclassroomdiscussions-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab903dfd3e796ad3c8462277446291fce073a03b"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/darrengarside","dataSources":["L27jN6ke7uzSFaCAw"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["critique","deliberative","discussion","response","education","deliberative","democracy","typology","classroom","discussions","backer"],"title":"The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. A Response to “Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions\"","year":2017}